Deb

Annoyed

Deb, even the pose isn’t all THAT bad. I mean, the foot part, yeah, that’s bad. But, the arms behind her head create a longer line and, it IS a maternity shoot, so the focus is DEFINITELY on the belly. Not something I would do because it’s just not a “natural” looking pose for a mom-to-be, but it’s not TOO TOO bad, ya know?

Pelham

Sure, but I don’t shoot boudoir/weddings/maternity/infants, which comprise the bulk of submissions here. I shoot a helluva lot of other stuff, though. I have ribboned on DPC, also write critiques for DPC, and have work up for sale on Alamy. Anyone else here able to make those claims?

TollToll

someone

Pelham

Deb, every fauxog thinks that they can shoot all of those genres and sadly they have a vast audience to choose from. I have yet to see fauxtogs target areas like sporting events, stock, food, animals, wildlife, product, etc. There’s a whole other world out there beyond those that cater to people’s vanity.

charlene772

Pelham

Just as a final note to this mini-thread. I’ll try to not rant too much.

Last time I checked, every one of us is exposed to at least 7000 images a day. A day! Most of it in the form of advertising in all its myriad forms, though obviously not just ads. And most of those images include photos. Ever flipped through a magazine? Seen a calendar, postcard or greeting card (though of course those are often heavily Photoshopped, usually to the point of PhotoChop.)? A movie poster? Billboards? Newspaper? Those annoying flash images on every second website? The key images aren’t pulled out of thin air. Someone created them.

Pros don’t limit themselves to shooting JUST weddings/boudoir/infant/maternity – which could be possible, perhaps, if you’re in a huge market like NYC, London, Paris, Rome, LA. I know a fashion photog who regularly shoots for Vogue, he’s based in Paris. But for most pros, versatility is the key. Hey, one of my images has been published in a school textbook, and when I was submitting microstock, an online cooking magazine repeatedly bought my food images.

And if you shoot quality work and it gets seen, you can get steady work, but you sure as hell better be able to deliver the goods. No reputable advertising agency I ever worked for would even dream of hiring less than the very best photographer than the budget could allow. So that alone knocks a good 98% of all wannabe photogs out of the ring, and onto craiglist and similar local freebie sites.

Al

Lisa

Okay. First, I am not a pro… I am somewhere between fauxtog and pro, but since I don’t actually charge people for doing anything, know what aperture, shutter speed and ISO are and how they work together to create a proper exposure, know how to run off camera flash, etc.

Maybe I can’t see this large enough or they did some kind of gaussian blur on this – but to me it looks out of focus (and I guess if someone doesn’t nail focus perfectly but gets it close, gaussian blur can make it look intentional). It also looks like it was lit by flash on camera, either pop-up or a flash on camera. The bulk of the flash is hitting a bit lower than I would like, too, not illuminating her face as well as her middle. The pose is awkward and not graceful at all. It could be that the subject is someone who is a bit silly and this fits her personality, then it would be kind of okay, though I would have at least positioned her outstretched leg a bit differently (i.e., bringing the foot back to the other leg instead of stuck out that way). Maybe they thought it looked kind of like she was doing some weird water ballet or something.

Bad? Not as bad as zombie baby, but this could have been so much nicer.

Eye_Spy

RealWedTog

This is an example of a photo with a lot of potential, but the photographer didn’t get it in focus in camera. It should have been immediately deleted in post production. Instead, the fauxtographer decided to try to fix the unfixable in Photoshop by trying to make the blur intentional. Guess what? If its not in focus, it’s not a keeper. Delete, move on, get it right in camera next time.

Gal with a Camera

Hey, an airbrushed baby bump is better than a close -up of one with huge veigns poking out. Lol that one was one of the worst I’ve seen on here. O-o
Now THIS one… it’s not terrible, but its still bad. Once again, the focus isn’t on anything… and that pose seems weird for a pregnant lady. LOL

Gal with a Camera

There is nothing about this photo that says “not that bad”, or “I’ve seen worse”
Holy crap! It’s horrible in every way! What’s wrong with you people?! I realize that the bar is slipping lower and lower every time a new faux is born, but….. No! The comments here have really shocked me, and I’m sitting here just shaking my head in disbelief.